Perrerson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Perrerson v. State

216 S.W. 186, 86 Tex. Crim. 265, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 401

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedNovember 26, 1919

DocketNo. 5575.

StatusPublished

This text of 216 S.W. 186 (Perrerson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Perrerson v. State, 216 S.W. 186, 86 Tex. Crim. 265, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 401 (Tex. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

MORROW, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of theft. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The only other point *266 suggested for review is in a bill of exception prepared by the court. It is directed against the admission of testimony claimed to have been in the nature of a confession made while under arrest and not accompanied with the formalities required by statutes. The bill as presented fails to show that the appellant was under arrest at the time she made the statement complained of, and does not show sufficiently the surrounding facts to advise this court of the materiality of the evidence which the appellant sought to exclude. The stolen property obtained from appellant was identified by other witnesses, and she on the witness stand—as we understand her testimony—admitted the possession of it but claimed to have gotten it by purchase.

Finding no error disclosed in the record the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MORROW, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of theft. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The only other point *266 suggested for review is in a bill of exception prepared by the court. It is directed against the admission of testimony claimed to have been in the nature of a confession made while under arrest and not accompanied with the formalities required by statutes. The bill as presented fails to show that the appellant was under arrest at the time she made the statement complained of, and does not show sufficiently the surrounding facts to advise this court of the materiality of the evidence which the appellant sought to exclude. The stolen property obtained from appellant was identified by other witnesses, and she on the witness stand—as we understand her testimony—admitted the possession of it but claimed to have gotten it by purchase.

Finding no error disclosed in the record the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 S.W. 186, 86 Tex. Crim. 265, 1919 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrerson-v-state-texcrimapp-1919.